At some point, the national Democratic Partyâ€™s leadership will discover a backbone and summon up the courage to sever its connection to Hillary Clinton.
Continued eye-rolling and hand-wringing each time Clinton delivers another critique of the partyâ€™s current field seeking the presidential nomination merely reinforces the timidity of the party establishment in dealing with the antics of its last presidential candidate.
Aside from muted murmurings of concern, the lack of any serious pushback to her rhetorical bomb-throwing stems from a lingering fear of the Clintons or the hope that she will recognize the damage sheâ€™s causing and desist.
Fat chance. Clinton is the epitome of self-absorption, stubbornly blaming others for her 2016 defeat while gleefully diminishing those now reaching for the prize she fumbled away. Her assault on Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders - currently in first, second or third place in the nomination competition - was stunning in its personally insulting tone.
â€śNobody wanted to work with himâ€¦nobody liked himâ€¦he got nothing doneâ€¦it was all baloney,â€ť she said of the time she shared in the Senate with him, adding that it was unfortunate that people â€śgot sucked into it.â€ť
She went on to characterize him as a â€ścareer politician,â€ť seemingly blinded to the irony of the comment uttered by someone whose spent eight years as First Lady, eight more as U. S. Senator from New York, four years as Secretary of State and who twice sought her partyâ€™s presidential nomination. She spent the bulk of her adult life holding or seeking public office.
Her attack on Sanders followed her bizarre accusation that Hawaii Rep. Tulsi Gabbard - a National Guard major who served in both Iraq and Kuwait - was a â€śRussian asset.â€ť It was a claim she also directed at Jill Stein, the Green Party presidential candidate in 2016.
Gabbard, the first Samoan-American to serve as a voting member of Congress and the first Hindu to serve, has since brought a lawsuit against Clinton, claiming that the comments defamed her, caused significant economic harm and was an effort to undermine her presidential candidacy.
In light of Clintonâ€™s long public record, Gabbardâ€™s description of her as â€śa cutthroat politicianâ€ť was superfluous.
Clinton has loathed Sanders since 2016 when he opposed her in the Democratic presidential primary and came surprisingly close to overtaking her.
She clearly never forgave him.
She has retained the support of long time sycophants whoâ€™ve attached themselves to the Clintons like barnacles on the hull of a harbor scow, either out of a sense of blind loyalty or the need to keep the monthly paychecks flowing.
She sent shivers through party leaders when she flirted publicly with the notion of entering the race last year, boasting sheâ€™d defeated Trump once - winning the popular vote - and would like nothing better than to do it again.
She is a divisive, destructive force in the party, driven not by policy differences or the current dispute over progressivism versus moderation as the path to defeating Trump.
Hers is a far more personal obsession - proving conclusively that victory was unfairly denied her four years ago, that she lost only because of the ineptitude or malfeasance of others.
Despite dozens of analyses and insider books that reject her assertions, she has refused to concede that her campaign was badly organized, strategically flawed, and poorly executed.
Carl Golden is a senior contributing analyst with the William J. Hughes Center for Public Policy at Stockton University in New Jersey.